فلسفۀ استعلایی فنّاوری برنارد استیگلر بر فراز تعیّن گری متقابل فنّاوری و پداگوژی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مقاله حاضر با تکیه بر فلسفه استعلایی فنّاوری برنارد استیگلر، به واکاوی دو دیدگاه عمده در مناسبات پداگوژی و فنّاوری یعنی تعیّن گری فنّاوری و تعیّن گری پداگوژی می پردازد. رویارویی و نوسان میان این دو قطب علاوه بر این که طیفی از واکنش ها از پذیرایی و شیفتگی تا شک آوری نسبت به فنّاوری های نوظهور را برانگیخته، نظام آموزشی ایران را در اتّخاذ رویکردی مناسب دچار آشفتگی ساخته است. این نوشتار نخست با رویکردی انتقادی به تحلیل بنیادها و نقد بازنمایی و حضور هرکدام از این دو قطب در عرصه تربیت پرداخته، سپس با رویکردی اشتقاقی به صورت بندی رهیافت هایی بر اساس فلسفه استیگلر برای تعامل این دو قطب با هم می پردازد. ایده اصلی استیگلر برخاسته از چهارچوبی که به طور عمده حاصل تلفیق مضامین پدیدارشناسانه و پساساختارگرایانه است، هم آفرینی فارماکولوژیکال فنّاوری و پداگوژی است. پیوندهای سه گانه میان انسان و فن، میان تخنه، فرونسیس و اپیستمه و میان اندیشه تربیتی پس اندیش و پیش اندیش درباره فناوری نیز این ایده را توضیح می دهند. در پایان نیز الهام بخشی هایی در تناظر با هرکدام از این مؤلّفه ها برای نوعی مواجهه بدیل میان فناوری و پداگوژی بر فراز تعیّن گری متقابل این دو، پیشنهاد شده اند.Bernard Stiegler’s Transcendental Philosophy of Technology Beyond the Reciprocal Determination of Technology and Pedagogy
Abstarct This paper, drawing on Bernard Stiegler’s transcendental philosophy of technology, offers an in-depth analysis of two dominant paradigms in the relationship between pedagogy and technology: technological determinism and pedagogical determinism. It explores the dynamic tension and oscillation between these opposing poles, which have generated a broad range of responses—from enthusiastic acceptance to cautious skepticism—toward emerging technologies. This tension has also contributed to a state of uncertainty within the Iranian education system regarding the adoption of a coherent and appropriate approach. The paper begins with a critical examination of the foundational assumptions underlying both technological and pedagogical determinism, offering a nuanced critique of how each framework manifests within educational practice. It then shifts to a constructive approach, developing theoretical frameworks and strategies for mediating the interaction between technology and pedagogy, grounded in Stiegler’s philosophical insights. Stiegler’s thought, which integrates phenomenological and post-structuralist perspectives, introduces the concept of pharmacological co-creation , emphasizing the reciprocal and co-constitutive relationship between technology and pedagogy. This concept challenges hierarchical or isolated views of either domain, advocating instead for a relational and interdependent understanding. The discussion is further enriched by examining key triadic relationships: between humans and technical objects; between tékhnē , phrónēsis , and epistēmē ; and between reflective and anticipatory educational thought. These relationships illuminate the complexity of educational technology use and underscore the need for a balanced, integrated approach. Ultimately, the paper calls for a holistic educational vision in which technology and pedagogy are not adversaries but co-evolving forces that together enhance the learning experience. Synopsis One of the key challenges in Technological advancements and transformations is articulating a well-grounded and balanced relationship between pedagogy and technology. Existing explanations have largely gravitated toward two opposing positions: either prioritizing technology over pedagogy ( technological determinism ) or considering pedagogy as the primary determinant in the use of technology ( pedagogical determinism ). The Iranian educational system, however, has yet to adopt a coherent and well-calibrated stance on this matter. The study critiques each paradigm on its foundational assumptions. Four key consequences of technological determinism in education can be briefly outlined. First , it reduces the focus from the fundamental nature and purpose of educational technologies to merely their functional aspects, leading to a superficial adaptation of technology in the hope of transforming educational practices. Second , it prioritizes the adaptation of educational actors to technology rather than fostering a reflective and critical appropriation of it. Third , it reinforces a binary mode of thinking about learners, rigidly categorizing them into fixed and unalterable groups. Fourth , it narrows educational objectives to purely technological goals, overlooking broader pedagogical and developmental considerations. On the other hand, pedagogical determinism—rooted in an instrumentalist view of technology—also carries three significant consequences. First , by emphasizing the application of technology, it largely disregards the design phase of educational technologies, treating them as predetermined and immutable tools rather than as entities that can be critically shaped. Second , when a technology fails to achieve its intended educational goals, teachers become the primary scapegoats, as they are presumed to lack the necessary skills for its proper use. Third , the instrumentalist approach to technology assumes a linear relationship between users (teachers and students), technology, and educational outcomes, implying that technology produces only the effects intended by its users, thereby neglecting unintended or emergent consequences. In critiquing these opposing forms of determinism, the authors turn to Bernard Stiegler’s transcendental philosophy of technology. First , Stiegler emphasizes the primordial connection between humans and technology, rejecting any fundamental opposition between the two as a false dichotomy. In his view, what distinguishes humans from animals is their capacity for technological exteriorization—the creation of prosthetic extensions to mediate their relationship with the external world. Second , he argues that the technological dimension of technē cannot be separated from its conceptual (epistēmē) and ethical (phronēsis) dimensions. This interconnectedness implies that technology is not merely a set of tools but is inherently tied to knowledge and moral considerations. Third , drawing on his reading of Plato’s Protagoras , Stiegler reinterprets the myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus. If Epimetheus symbolizes humanity and its inherent deficiency, and Prometheus represents technology as the means to compensate for this lack, then these two figures should not be seen as opposing forces but rather as complementary ones. Epimetheus, characterized by retrospection and past-oriented thinking, only realizes his shortcomings when confronted with the proactive and future-oriented nature of Prometheus. Their encounter is what enables the recognition of human limitations and the technological efforts to overcome them. Fourth , Stiegler conceptualizes technology as pharmakon , a term influenced by both Plato and Derrida. He views technology as simultaneously both a cure and a poison. All technologies, when understood as acts of exteriorization in humanity’s engagement with the world, possess a dual structure: they can serve as instruments of liberation or mechanisms of alienation. Conclusion In concluding the discussion, from the foundational connection between humans and technology, it becomes evident that the meaning of being human is continuously redefined with the emergence of new technologies in each historical period. Therefore, if pedagogy is fundamentally concerned with the human condition and seeks to maintain primacy over technology, it cannot begin by assuming a fixed and ahistorical definition of human nature that exists independently of technological developments. Rather, pedagogy must recognize that technology is not merely an external factor to be incorporated into predefined educational frameworks but is itself constitutive of how humanity evolves. Consequently, any pedagogical approach that seeks to engage meaningfully with technology must remain open to the ongoing transformation of what it means to be human in a technologically mediated world. Furthermore, the interconnectedness of technē , phronēsis , and epistēmē —and the emergence of technology’s meaning through their interaction—cautions us against isolating or prioritizing one at the expense of the others. In technological determinism, educators tend to focus solely on the functional and operational aspects of technology, reducing it to a mere tool without considering its broader epistemological and ethical implications. Conversely, in pedagogical determinism, educators emphasize phronēsis and epistēmē while neglecting the practical and material dimensions of technē . Moreover, the interplay between Prometheus and Epimetheus suggests that the appropriate approach to emerging educational technologies—such as the rise of AI-based systems—requires a reflective stance. Instead of uncritically embracing new technologies, we must first ask: What have we done with previous technologies? How do we now assess their unintended and unforeseen consequences? What specific problem is this new technology intended to address? Ultimately, a pharmacological perspective on educational technology necessitates that our pedagogical engagement with it be structured through a dialectic between remedy (adoption) and harm (adaptation). The only thing that teachers and policymakers can do in response to educational technologies in this digital age is to adopt heuristic approaches and strategies to prioritize one form of positive pharmacology over the negative one.
تبلیغات
